Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Myanna Lahsen]

Hello GEPers,

As someone who has studied and written about climate skepticism, there
are many strands in this discussion I would like to pick up on.

I will start with whether or not skepticism is "almost exclusively a
global North position."

As I wrote in the 2005 “Democracy, Technocracy and US Climate
Politics” article Peter Jacques cited, no other countries dispose of a
similarly large body of contrarians. However, I think it is important
to stress:

(1)  We don’t know enough about most national contexts. This is partly
because there are surprisingly few studies focused on this topic,
especially outside of US and Europe. STS research is overwhelmingly
focused on the most industrialized countries. Anthropology and
sociology, as disciplines, have engaged with climate change timidly,
and have a lot of work to do yet. Knowledge politics – the upstream
production of scientific knowledge and the downstream uses of it – are
understudied in this area, despite calls for such studies in both
fields. This is a longer discussion that I won’t go into here. Suffice
it to say that our disciplinary traditions and the institutional
structures in which they flourish (universities) are part of the
problem.

(2)  There may be more skepticism than we know of outside of the
“global North.” It is important to recognize that science tends to be
scrutinized the more economic interests are at stake. As long as
countries do not have binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol nor
other types of commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
skeptical views that *may* exist inside such countries – or outside,
for that matter – are less likely to be expressed and/or receive a lot
of attention domestically. Some non-Annex 1 countries in the UNFCCC
process may even have economic interests in belief in climate change,
at least as long as they are not being pressured to reduce their own
emissions and might receive funding and other benefits through the
Clean Development Mechanisms and other similar schemes that have
emerged out of efforts to reduce global emissions.

Like Dunlap, Jacques, and others, I have analyzed the structural
reasons for climate skepticism. I will include references to some of
this work below. As an anthropologist, I have focused relatively more
on the role of culture and value-related differences in structuring
the differences among scientists involved in US climate- and climate
science politics. Some of this work may interest those of you who have
expressed interest in those dimensions on this discussion list and/or
who teach about the subject. For instance, in the 2008 article titled
“Experiences of Modernity in the Greenhouse”, I analyze a subgroup of
US contrarian physicists supporting the Conservative backlash against
global warming, concluding that their engagements are best understood
through a variety of non-determining but contributing factors that
reflect tensions related to transformations in US science and society
since the Second World War.

The March 29 New York Times article on Dyson served to support key
elements of this analysis. So did the Brazilian Brazilian incident
that Dale Jamieson referred to in his contribution to this discussion
today, an incident which was provoked by a contrarian publication in
the prominent Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo. The incident
revealed the global dissemination and use of US climate contrarianism
and their proponents; as his scientific authority, the Brazilian
invoked US contrarians Fred Seitz and Bill Nierenberg – two of the
physicists I analyze in the 2008 article. It also revealed the
transnational dimension of skepticism; the person who wrote the
contrarian piece in the Folha de Sao Paulo shared not only the
rhetoric and values of US skeptics, but also an important part of the
traits that I argue – in conjunction with other factors - explain the
US physicists’ engagements.

For the record, the prestige of the person who wrote the contrarian
piece in the Folha de Sao Paulo is debatable. He is a former rector of
the esteemed University of Brasilia. However, he is not a climate
expert and he gained his rector position due to his alignment with the
military dictatorship, which he actively served in that position,
according to accounts I have gathered. For those reasons and others,
he is also not a credible person in many circles. His arguments
reflect deep ignorance about central things, including what the IPCC
really does, and he explicitly associates environmentalism with
Nazism. When I published a response to his piece in the same newspaper
a few months back, his response was a rabid personal attack in which
he called me a Nazist. His background, style and other features thus
limit both his impact and his prestige. Still, writing in such a
prominent newspaper will have some effects, and Dale apparently saw
evidence to that effect. It would be interesting to chart who picks up
on his arguments and authority, and who does not.  It will also be
inte

RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' -- framing theory

[Kenneth Wilkening]

Hi All,

One of the most frequently used terms in the recent skeptics discussion is 
"framing." DG Webster and Adam Henne specifically refer to framing theory (ie, 
the literature on frames). How widespread is the application of framing theory 
(alternatively called frame theory, frame analysis, or framework analysis) in 
the international/global environmental politics literature? Multiple 
disciplines such as media studies, political science, psychology, social 
movement studies, and sociology all have a fair share of works using this 
theory (or, better, collection of approaches and methods). However, I have seen 
few works in the international/global environmental study literature. Am I 
missing something or has this theory/method not received much attention in our 
field? I would appreciate any references.

I hope I framed my question correctly . . .

Thanks,
Ken

Ken Wilkening
International Studies Program
University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC)
 University Way
Prince George, BC
Canada V2N 4Z9

Tel: (250) 960-5768
Fax: (250) 960-5545
Email: k...@unbc.ca<mailto:k...@unbc.ca>



From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu 
[mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of DG Webster
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 3:06 PM
To: Simon Dalby
Cc: rldavis; Deb Ranjan Sinha (Gmail); Global Environmental Education
Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics' -- FRAMING

To add to some of the threads above...

In all this talk about framing, it's important to remember the difference 
between the psychological term and how it's used by political scientists. 
Originally, framing referred to the set of stereotypes that an individual uses 
to interpret information and experience into action (or inaction). Political 
scientists use the words "framing" and "reframing" interchangeably to refer to 
attempts by some (usually be elite groups) to alter the frames used by others 
(usually the public, although in this case, it seems we're really discussing 
inter-elite reframing of issues). In this, people are bound to be frustrated 
because of the many types of cognitive biases that inhibit individuals from 
changing their frames (or stereotypes). There's everything from conservatism 
bias (not to be confused with conservative political views, this is the proven 
tendancy for individuals to discard information that counters prior beliefs 
even if its true and accept information that shores up prior beliefs even if 
its false) to group polarization (get a bunch of moderates together and they'll 
end up with more extreme beliefs) to group attribution error (the mistaken 
belief that outgroup behaviors are a result of personality rather than 
circumstances). Furthermore, these biases can feedback onto one another, 
magnifying the degree of polarization among groups. Combine this with post-hoc 
rationalization once a decision has been made, and you've got a path dependent 
processes of polarization that is incredebly potent. (just consider the recent 
news-worthy examples provided by the legislatures of CA and NY).

Long story short, people are not rational (ourselves included) and we don't 
changes our minds easily, especially when our opinions are backed by group as 
well as individual identities. If we get 'em young, before their frames have 
solidified (usually happens by early 20s) then what psychologists call 
frame-realignment can be easier. But once people reach adulthood it's very 
difficult. Argumentation (in the classic sense of the world) can work, 
particularly if we are just trying to bridge, amplify, or extend current 
frames, but for a transformation to take place there usually needs to be a 
highly available (vivid and salient) event that literally shocks people into 
frame transformation. Or, with something as complex as climate change, it may 
take many events.

All this is frustrating, but it is the nature of the beast. It doesn't mean 
that we shouldn't try to reframe the debate (I'll second Ron & Larry's 
statements about clarifying the scientific method and role of science here), 
just that we should take it all with a grain of salt. Personally, I find that 
understanding the underlying psychology helps me to keep my own head when 
engaged in such debates and also lets me know when an individual is really 
arguing their emotional attachment to an idea rather than its underlying logic. 
Plus, I find the social-science implications of it all to be absolutely 
fascinating.

livwell,
dgwebster







On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Simon Dalby 
mailto:sda...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Folks:

A slightly different take picking up from Larry Davis' post and thinking 
through "framing" rather than anger ...

Science doesn't explain everything, and the huge problem with framing climate 
change as an either or, right wron

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Elizabeth De Santo]

An interesting 'skeptics' view was aired in the UK a couple of years ago, 
called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which blamed climate change on 
sunspots, inter alia and questioned the underlying science:  
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/

I don't know if the original program is available online or on DVD, but it's 
worth seeing and it's certainly interesting material to provoke conversation in 
the classroom.  I recall that at least one of the experts interviewed were 
quoted out of context and infuriated afterward (check news sources on google 
for refs).  Thus this particular piece of work is interesting both in terms of 
content and in terms of context/manipulation.  

The documentary itself makes an interesting assertion about the science/policy 
interface in terms of how climate change is dominating the agenda in terms of 
research funding.  Some of these arguments have a 'conspiracy theory' flavour, 
but nonetheless are likely to be brought up by students and are thus worth 
consideration.

Regards,
Elizabeth

Elizabeth M. De Santo, Ph.D.




--- On Sun, 5/7/09, Graham Smart  wrote:

From: Graham Smart 
Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
To: "Deb Ranjan Sinha (Gmail)" 
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Date: Sunday, 5 July, 2009, 11:04 PM

Yes, it's interesting to see how the 'polluter pays' argument (developed 
countries put the vast majority of the GHGs currently in the atmosphere up 
there as they industrialized, and so should bear the brunt of international 
efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels) and the 'per capita' argument (the 
emissions of individual countries should be measured on a per-capita basis) 
loom large in the positions of the governments of India and China, but are 
conspicuous by their absence in the positions of the US and Canada.  
 
Graham
 

- Original Message -
From: "Deb Ranjan Sinha (Gmail)" 
Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009 5:48 pm
Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu

> And please add in the other group of 'skeptics' one would 
> encounter in 
> developing countries, those pro-growth enthusiasts who don't 
> want anything 
> coming between their playing catch-up with the industrialized 
> North. China and 
> India certainly fall in this category.
> 
> Deb.
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Dr. Wil Burns" 
> 
> 
>  Many folks in developing countries believe that they 
> are confronted with 
> a host issues far more pressing than climate change 
> 

--- 
Graham Smart 
Associate Professor 
Carleton University 
School of Linguistics & 
   Language Studies 
215 Paterson Hall 
1125 Colonel By Drive 
Ottawa, Ontario 
Canada K1S 5B6 
-- 








  

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Graham Smart]

Yes, it's interesting to see how the 'polluter pays' argument (developed 
countries put the vast majority of the GHGs currently in the atmosphere up 
there as they industrialized, and so should bear the brunt of international 
efforts to reduce use of fossil fuels) and the 'per capita' argument (the 
emissions of individual countries should be measured on a per-capita basis) 
loom large in the positions of the governments of India and China, but are 
conspicuous by their absence in the positions of the US and Canada.  
 
Graham
 

- Original Message -
From: "Deb Ranjan Sinha (Gmail)" 
Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009 5:48 pm
Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu

> And please add in the other group of 'skeptics' one would 
> encounter in 
> developing countries, those pro-growth enthusiasts who don't 
> want anything 
> coming between their playing catch-up with the industrialized 
> North. China and 
> India certainly fall in this category.
> 
> Deb.
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Dr. Wil Burns" 
> 
> 
>  Many folks in developing countries believe that they 
> are confronted with 
> a host issues far more pressing than climate change 
> 

--- 
Graham Smart 
Associate Professor 
Carleton University 
School of Linguistics & 
   Language Studies 
215 Paterson Hall 
1125 Colonel By Drive 
Ottawa, Ontario 
Canada K1S 5B6 
-- 

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Deb Ranjan Sinha (Gmail)]

And please add in the other group of 'skeptics' one would encounter in 
developing countries, those pro-growth enthusiasts who don't want anything 
coming between their playing catch-up with the industrialized North. China and 
India certainly fall in this category.

Deb.

- Original Message - 
From: "Dr. Wil Burns" 


 Many folks in developing countries believe that they are confronted with 
a host issues far more pressing than climate change 

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Dale W Jamieson]

dear kate (et al),

i was lecturing in brazil a couple of weeks ago and the 'is it really true' 
question came up with surprising frequency.  turns out that a very prestigious 
figure, the former rector of the university of brazilia, is a climate change 
denier.  there have been strong replies to him in the brazilian media, but 
nevertheless his influence seems to have kept the doubts alive.

all best,

dale



**
Dale Jamieson
Director of Environmental Studies
Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy
Affiliated Professor of Law
Environmental Studies Program 
New York University 
285 Mercer Street, 901
New York NY 10003-6653 
Voice 212-998-5429
Fax 212-995-4157
http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/dalejamieson.html

"Intellectuals are reliable lagging indicators, near infallible guides to what 
used to be true."--Charles R. Morris 

- Original Message -
From: Kate O'Neill 
Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009 1:18 pm
Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
To: Peter Jacques 
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu

> Hi Peter (and everyone, thanks for the discussion),
> 
> One thing you say below caught me by surprise: that skepticism is  
> "almost exclusively a global North position". Is this true? Can you  
> elucidate? It's certainly not intuitively obvious, although I would  
> guess that our boys are the loudest skeptics using this particular  
> framing.
> 
> Kate
> 
> 
> On Jul 5, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Peter Jacques wrote:
> 
> > Our discussions on skepticism have always been really interesting  
> > on this list, and they have helped me evolve my own thoughts on the  
> 
> > matter, so thank you to all posting.
> >
> > The issue of political economic and energy structure raised by  
> > Olivia, as well as some of the issues raised by DG on psych frames  
> 
> > are interesting. It appears to me that as social scientists, one of  
> 
> > the more powerful things we can do is provide insight into the  
> >  structure and patterns in skepticism.  For example, we  
> > have briefly discussed and implied the fact, but isn't it peculiar  
> 
> > that such strong demands on knowledge claims (and impeding action)  
> 
> > can be asserted from a singular ideology (contemporary  
> > conservatism, with only minor exceptions), whereas we have  a  
> > multitude of ideological voices (not just contemporary liberal)  
> > that assert a number of different lines of argument but which are  
> > in stark contrast to skepticism?  Doesn't the fact that such  
> > perspectives are held by so narrow a position, in fact, call into  
> > question the legitimacy (let's leave truth aside for the moment) of  
> 
> > the claim? I think this might be the Achilles heel of skepticism  
> > (remember the original post here was about the Inhofe/Morano list  
> > that attempts to refute the imputed illegitimacy of skepticism by  
> > showing there are supposed skeptical experts), because if something  
> 
> > were true, wouldn't we expect a multitude of perspectives to have  
> > some degree concurrence? (this was my ISA paper in Feb, "The  
> > Science Trap").  Beyond ideology, skepticism is almost exclusively  
> 
> > a global North position (and mostly in the US, with some UK and  
> > less Australian counterparts). Accepting that any position can be  
> > wrong to various degrees, over time as different epistemologies  
> > concur, this should provide mounting legitimacy. Assuming that most  
> 
> > groups can not tell the difference between a real and manufactured  
> 
> > controversy in the actual science communities, legitimacy may be  
> > more politically viable for evaluation than truth because it is  
> > clear that many (even elite) communities have been completely  
> > snowed. These are truncated points that Riley Dunlap, Bob Brulle  
> > and myself are trying to hammer out now in a different paper(so any  
> 
> > comments are appreciated on or off list).
> >
> > Perhaps a synthesis of Wil's concerns and Suzi's comments, it is my  
> 
> > own position that  we  use the skeptical arguments as  
> > teaching (social science, and science and society) moments. I do so  
> 
> > in my classes by using social science literature and research as  
> > the way to think about framing, political theory, ideology, social  
> 
> > movements and knowledge claims, etc...  It is only when I provide  
> > this context (not when I present my understanding of climate  
> > sciences which end up in point-counterpoint conversations) that my  
> 
> > stud

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Adam Henne]

 caused by humanity to the biosphere
> as a whole. (In this sense I agree with Howard’s reference to Lomborg’s
> different take on priorities).
>  Energy and the impact its use has on the planet gives both moral and
> factual certainties, to abuse Suzanne’s phrase, and makes a discussion and
> appreciation of moral responsibility (Wil’s point) so much easier. By taking
> energy as the entry point, you soon move to question the growth model based
> on industrialisation and the local and global damage it causes. Sitting at a
> few kilometres from mainland China I need few reminders of this.
>  I therefore wonder whether framing the problem in terms of climate change
> – the ultimate expression of unsustainable patterns of growth and humanity’s
> ‘continuing transformation of the earth’ (Schellnhuber et al.), has in fact
> made the pursuit of more sustainable futures that much harder, and
> vulnerable to endless debates on scientific ‘truths’ (which Wil and Larry
> remind us, are actually not *that* uncertain).
>
> But we are on our way to Copenhagen.
>  Happy Sunday,
>  Olivia
>  ps. a quote from Suzanne Duarte which somehow links to Simon’s point
> about the shift needed:
> ‘…people who don’t like the message blame, or ‘shoot,’ the messenger.
> The message of ‘hope’ that is demanded by these people is actually the hope
> that we don’t have to take responsibility for ourselves and our world by
> changing how we live, and with what we preoccupy ourselves. The hope that
> many people want is very conditional. They can only take hope if they are
> reassured that things will continue as they have been during this very
> extraordinary last few decades’.
> Suzanne Duarte, Waking Up in a Former Empire at the End of the Industrial
> Age
>
> http://dandeliontimes.net/2009/05/waking-up-in-a-former-empire-at-the-end-of-the-industrial-age/Posted
>  May 18th, 2009
>
> ***
>
> Olivia Bina
>
> Assistant Professor, Energy and Sustainable Development
> Programme Director, Centre for Strategic Environmental Assessment for China
> Department of Geography and Resource Management
> The Chinese University of Hong Kong
> Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong S.A.R.
>
>
> work: (00852) 2609 6647
>
> email: o.c.bina...@cantab.net
>
> skype: oliviabina
>
> ***
>
>  On 5 Jul 2009, at 06:21, Alcock, Frank wrote:
>
>   I understand the anger and frustration that is widely felt among those
> that are concerned about climate change -- I hold many similar sentiments.
> I dont't doubt that the cathartic venting can be a theraputic exercise.  And
> I realize that some skeptics and some conservatives are a lost cause -- no
> evidence or argument will persuade them to think differently.  But there are
> a number of key constituencies (in key congressional districts and states)
> that are pivotal to passing legislation in the US: blue-collar dems,
> moderate republicans and independents of various stripes.
>
> How do each of these constituences "frame" the climate issue and what types
> of arguments and associated evidence are likely to persuade them to support
> a progressive climate and energy agenda?  I'll refrain from a longwinded
> answer to this question but would recommend Drew Westen's The Political
> Brain for a general take on how we process information and respond to
> political arguments and Tony Leiserowitz' work for a more specific focus on
> public opinion associated with climate and energy issues.  Suffice it to say
> that what appears to be self-righteous indignation and shaming is often
> counterproductive.  Ditto the doomsday scenarios.
>
> Krugman's anger might have been directed at Congress (it wasn't just
> directed at republicans but also dems who voted against the bill...he seems
> to have a considerable amount of contempt for moderate dems if you haven't
> noticed) but he indirectly labels all Americans who have doubts about the
> bill as traitors.  Whether or not you agree with him is one issue.  How the
> folks in key constituency groups (many of whom are experiencing severe
> economic turmoil and associated anxiety) respond is another.  I suspect
> it'll make them more receptive to liberal environmentalist caricatures as
> framed by conservative skeptics.
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* VanDeveer, Stacy 
> [mailto:stacy.vandev...@unh.edu
> ]
> *Sent:* Sat 7/4/2009 2:43 PM
> *To:* williamcgbu...@comcast.net; Alcock, Frank; 'Paul Wapner'
> *Cc:* gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu;
> owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman'
> *Subject:* RE: Ongoing is

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Kate O'Neill]

  
point about the shift needed:

‘…people who don’t like the message blame, or ‘shoot,’ the messenger.
The message of ‘hope’ that is demanded by these people is actually  
the hope that we don’t have to take responsibility for ourselves  
and our world by changing how we live, and with what we preoccupy  
ourselves. The hope that many people want is very conditional. They  
can only take hope if they are reassured that things will continue  
as they have been during this very extraordinary last few decades’.
Suzanne Duarte, Waking Up in a Former Empire at the End of the  
Industrial Age
http://dandeliontimes.net/2009/05/waking-up-in-a-former-empire-at- 
the-end-of-the-industrial-age/ Posted May 18th, 2009

***
Olivia Bina

Assistant Professor, Energy and Sustainable Development
Programme Director, Centre for Strategic Environmental Assessment  
for China

Department of Geography and Resource Management
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong S.A.R.


work: (00852) 2609 6647
email: o.c.bina...@cantab.net
skype: oliviabina

***

On 5 Jul 2009, at 06:21, Alcock, Frank wrote:

I understand the anger and frustration that is widely felt among  
those that are concerned about climate change -- I hold many  
similar sentiments.  I dont't doubt that the cathartic venting can  
be a theraputic exercise.  And I realize that some skeptics and  
some conservatives are a lost cause -- no evidence or argument  
will persuade them to think differently.  But there are a number  
of key constituencies (in key congressional districts and states)  
that are pivotal to passing legislation in the US: blue-collar  
dems, moderate republicans and independents of various stripes.


How do each of these constituences "frame" the climate issue and  
what types of arguments and associated evidence are likely to  
persuade them to support a progressive climate and energy agenda?   
I'll refrain from a longwinded answer to this question but would  
recommend Drew Westen's The Political Brain for a general take on  
how we process information and respond to political arguments and  
Tony Leiserowitz' work for a more specific focus on public opinion  
associated with climate and energy issues.  Suffice it to say that  
what appears to be self-righteous indignation and shaming is often  
counterproductive.  Ditto the doomsday scenarios.


Krugman's anger might have been directed at Congress (it wasn't  
just directed at republicans but also dems who voted against the  
bill...he seems to have a considerable amount of contempt for  
moderate dems if you haven't noticed) but he indirectly labels all  
Americans who have doubts about the bill as traitors.  Whether or  
not you agree with him is one issue.  How the folks in key  
constituency groups (many of whom are experiencing severe economic  
turmoil and associated anxiety) respond is another.  I suspect  
it'll make them more receptive to liberal environmentalist  
caricatures as framed by conservative skeptics.




From: VanDeveer, Stacy [mailto:stacy.vandev...@unh.edu]
Sent: Sat 7/4/2009 2:43 PM
To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net; Alcock, Frank; 'Paul Wapner'
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep- 
e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman'

Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

I agree with Wil on this one.  Krugman's anger and contempt are  
not aimed all all citizens who are skeptical, but squarely at  
Republicans in Congress -- elected in theory to represent people's  
interests.  Yes, some are representing shorter term economic  
interests of their districts.  But most, in fact, are working to  
do very serious harm to millions of people (Americans and not) and  
they don't give a damn and they have offered nothing in the way of  
constructive policy ideas.  Some anger and contempt for such folks  
is not misplaced, in my view...




From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep- 
e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Wil Burns  
[williamcgbu...@comcast.net]

Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 12:29 PM
To: 'Alcock, Frank'; 'Paul Wapner'
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep- 
e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman'

Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

Hi Frank,

I actually didn’t find Krugman’s piece as so much smug as  
extremely angry, and I have to say it’s exactly how I feel on this  
issue, especially when I watch my six-year old playing in the back  
yard, or I travel to a small island state, and despair over the  
world we’re leaving them to cope with. It may be that liberals  
need to rant every now and then about issues of this saliency  
purely as a means of catharsis.


Having said that, yes, 

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Olivia Bina]

ate  
change – the ultimate expression of unsustainable patterns of growth  
and humanity’s ‘continuing transformation of the earth’ (Schellnhuber  
et al.), has in fact made the pursuit of more sustainable futures that  
much harder, and vulnerable to endless debates on scientific  
‘truths’ (which Wil and Larry remind us, are actually not that  
uncertain).

But we are on our way to Copenhagen.


Happy Sunday,

Olivia

ps. a quote from Suzanne Duarte which somehow links to Simon’s point  
about the shift needed:

‘…people who don’t like the message blame, or ‘shoot,’ the messenger.
The message of ‘hope’ that is demanded by these people is actually the  
hope that we don’t have to take responsibility for ourselves and our  
world by changing how we live, and with what we preoccupy ourselves.  
The hope that many people want is very conditional. They can only take  
hope if they are reassured that things will continue as they have been  
during this very extraordinary last few decades’.
Suzanne Duarte, Waking Up in a Former Empire at the End of the  
Industrial Age
http://dandeliontimes.net/2009/05/waking-up-in-a-former-empire-at-the-end-of-the-industrial-age/ 
 Posted May 18th, 2009

***
Olivia Bina
Assistant Professor, Energy and Sustainable Development
Programme Director, Centre for Strategic Environmental Assessment for  
China

Department of Geography and Resource Management
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong S.A.R.

work: (00852) 2609 6647
email: o.c.bina...@cantab.net
skype: oliviabina
***

On 5 Jul 2009, at 06:21, Alcock, Frank wrote:

I understand the anger and frustration that is widely felt among  
those that are concerned about climate change -- I hold many similar  
sentiments.  I dont't doubt that the cathartic venting can be a  
theraputic exercise.  And I realize that some skeptics and some  
conservatives are a lost cause -- no evidence or argument will  
persuade them to think differently.  But there are a number of key  
constituencies (in key congressional districts and states) that are  
pivotal to passing legislation in the US: blue-collar dems, moderate  
republicans and independents of various stripes.


How do each of these constituences "frame" the climate issue and  
what types of arguments and associated evidence are likely to  
persuade them to support a progressive climate and energy agenda?   
I'll refrain from a longwinded answer to this question but would  
recommend Drew Westen's The Political Brain for a general take on  
how we process information and respond to political arguments and  
Tony Leiserowitz' work for a more specific focus on public opinion  
associated with climate and energy issues.  Suffice it to say that  
what appears to be self-righteous indignation and shaming is often  
counterproductive.  Ditto the doomsday scenarios.


Krugman's anger might have been directed at Congress (it wasn't just  
directed at republicans but also dems who voted against the  
bill...he seems to have a considerable amount of contempt for  
moderate dems if you haven't noticed) but he indirectly labels all  
Americans who have doubts about the bill as traitors.  Whether or  
not you agree with him is one issue.  How the folks in key  
constituency groups (many of whom are experiencing severe economic  
turmoil and associated anxiety) respond is another.  I suspect it'll  
make them more receptive to liberal environmentalist caricatures as  
framed by conservative skeptics.




From: VanDeveer, Stacy [mailto:stacy.vandev...@unh.edu]
Sent: Sat 7/4/2009 2:43 PM
To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net; Alcock, Frank; 'Paul Wapner'
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu 
; 'Steve Hoffman'

Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

I agree with Wil on this one.  Krugman's anger and contempt are not  
aimed all all citizens who are skeptical, but squarely at  
Republicans in Congress -- elected in theory to represent people's  
interests.  Yes, some are representing shorter term economic  
interests of their districts.  But most, in fact, are working to do  
very serious harm to millions of people (Americans and not) and they  
don't give a damn and they have offered nothing in the way of  
constructive policy ideas.  Some anger and contempt for such folks  
is not misplaced, in my view...




From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu 
] On Behalf Of Dr. Wil Burns [williamcgbu...@comcast.net]

Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 12:29 PM
To: 'Alcock, Frank'; 'Paul Wapner'
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu 
; 'Steve Hoffman'

Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to '

RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Alcock, Frank]

Title: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'



I understand the anger and frustration that is widely felt among those that are concerned about climate change -- I hold many similar sentiments.  I dont't doubt that the cathartic venting can be a theraputic exercise.  And I realize that some skeptics and some conservatives are a lost cause -- no evidence or argument will persuade them to think differently.  But there are a number of key constituencies (in key congressional districts and states) that are pivotal to passing legislation in the US: blue-collar dems, moderate republicans and independents of various stripes.
 
How do each of these constituences "frame" the climate issue and what types of arguments and associated evidence are likely to persuade them to support a progressive climate and energy agenda?  I'll refrain from a longwinded answer to this question but would recommend Drew Westen's The Political Brain for a general take on how we process information and respond to political arguments and Tony Leiserowitz' work for a more specific focus on public opinion associated with climate and energy issues.  Suffice it to say that what appears to be self-righteous indignation and shaming is often counterproductive.  Ditto the doomsday scenarios.
 
Krugman's anger might have been directed at Congress (it wasn't just directed at republicans but also dems who voted against the bill...he seems to have a considerable amount of contempt for moderate dems if you haven't noticed) but he indirectly labels all Americans who have doubts about the bill as traitors.  Whether or not you agree with him is one issue.  How the folks in key constituency groups (many of whom are experiencing severe economic turmoil and associated anxiety) respond is another.  I suspect it'll make them more receptive to liberal environmentalist caricatures as framed by conservative skeptics.
 
 


From: VanDeveer, Stacy [mailto:stacy.vandev...@unh.edu]Sent: Sat 7/4/2009 2:43 PMTo: williamcgbu...@comcast.net; Alcock, Frank; 'Paul Wapner'Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman'Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

I agree with Wil on this one.  Krugman's anger and contempt are not aimed all all citizens who are skeptical, but squarely at Republicans in Congress -- elected in theory to represent people's interests.  Yes, some are representing shorter term economic interests of their districts.  But most, in fact, are working to do very serious harm to millions of people (Americans and not) and they don't give a damn and they have offered nothing in the way of constructive policy ideas.  Some anger and contempt for such folks is not misplaced, in my view...From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Wil Burns [williamcgbu...@comcast.net]Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 12:29 PMTo: 'Alcock, Frank'; 'Paul Wapner'Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman'Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'Hi Frank,I actually didn’t find Krugman’s piece as so much smug as extremely angry, and I have to say it’s exactly how I feel on this issue, especially when I watch my six-year old playing in the back yard, or I travel to a small island state, and despair over the world we’re leaving them to cope with. It may be that liberals need to rant every now and then about issues of this saliency purely as a means of catharsis.Having said that, yes, it doesn’t bring us together, so I’m sure far sager communicators on this list, such as Susi, would tell me it’s probably a dumb strategy. However, I wonder if any message would prove effective with the GOP this year, so maybe catharsis ain’t a bad thing to pursue at this point. It also may be that moral indignation, framing this as an issue of patriotism and our moral responsibility to the most vulnerable of this generation and generations to come, may be critical to ultimately changing norms, as was true in the civil rights movement in this country, the battle against apartheid, etc. I’ve reached a point where I’m running out of ways to frame this issue that might prove effective. wilDr. Wil BurnsClass of 1946 Visiting ProfessorCenter for Environmental StudiesWilliams College11 Harper House, Room 1254 Stetson Ct.Williamstown, MA 01267william.c.bu...@williams.edu[cid:image001.gif@01C9FC89.A5A4A640]

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[DG Webster]

To add to some of the threads above...

In all this talk about framing, it's important to remember the difference
between the psychological term and how it's used by political scientists.
Originally, framing referred to the set of stereotypes that an individual
uses to interpret information and experience into action (or inaction).
Political scientists use the words "framing" and "reframing" interchangeably
to refer to attempts by some (usually be elite groups) to alter the frames
used by others (usually the public, although in this case, it seems we're
really discussing inter-elite reframing of issues). In this, people are
bound to be frustrated because of the many types of cognitive biases that
inhibit individuals from changing their frames (or stereotypes). There's
everything from conservatism bias (not to be confused with conservative
political views, this is the proven tendancy for individuals to discard
information that counters prior beliefs even if its true and accept
information that shores up prior beliefs even if its false) to group
polarization (get a bunch of moderates together and they'll end up with more
extreme beliefs) to group attribution error (the mistaken belief that
outgroup behaviors are a result of personality rather than circumstances).
Furthermore, these biases can feedback onto one another, magnifying the
degree of polarization among groups. Combine this with post-hoc
rationalization once a decision has been made, and you've got a path
dependent processes of polarization that is incredebly potent. (just
consider the recent news-worthy examples provided by the legislatures of CA
and NY).

Long story short, people are not rational (ourselves included) and we don't
changes our minds easily, especially when our opinions are backed by group
as well as individual identities. If we get 'em young, before their frames
have solidified (usually happens by early 20s) then what psychologists call
frame-realignment can be easier. But once people reach adulthood it's very
difficult. Argumentation (in the classic sense of the world) can work,
particularly if we are just trying to bridge, amplify, or extend current
frames, but for a transformation to take place there usually needs to be a
highly available (vivid and salient) event that literally shocks people into
frame transformation. Or, with something as complex as climate change, it
may take many events.

All this is frustrating, but it is the nature of the beast. It doesn't mean
that we shouldn't try to reframe the debate (I'll second Ron & Larry's
statements about clarifying the scientific method and role of science here),
just that we should take it all with a grain of salt. Personally, I find
that understanding the underlying psychology helps me to keep my own head
when engaged in such debates and also lets me know when an individual is
really arguing their emotional attachment to an idea rather than its
underlying logic. Plus, I find the social-science implications of it all to
be absolutely fascinating.

livwell,
dgwebster







On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Simon Dalby  wrote:

> Folks:
>
> A slightly different take picking up from Larry Davis' post and thinking
> through "framing" rather than anger ...
>
> Science doesn't explain everything, and the huge problem with framing
> climate change as an either or, right wrong matter is precisely that it
> pretends science is something it plainly and simply isn't.
>
> Framing what matters as only climate change too is also a problem because
> other changes are part of the mix. Media stories blaming climate change for
> every disaster are obviously silly, but nonetheless it seems clear that
> greater instabilities in the climate system are to be expected as GHGs
> increase and other ecological shifts happen simultaneously.
>
> If you will please all forgive my flagrant self promotion here for a
> minute, the little book I sent a note around about yesterday was in part
> designed to re-frame, or as I usually prefer to put matters,
> re-contextualise this debate. It does so by trying to link environmental
> history, current thinking about earth system science (which includes climate
> change of course but is about more than that) and the literature on
> vulnerability, which is crucial for understanding who dies in disasters.
>
> I am trying to find a simple vocabulary to explain to students how we
> collectively have taken our fate into our own hands without necessarily
> realising we have in fact done this. The new forcing mechanisms in the
> biosphere are urban industrial production systems that literally turn rocks
> into air, which is what fossil fuel consumption is doing. As new geological
> actors we set things in motion which impact humanity in the increasingly
> artificial ecologies of the urban settings we now live in. State boundaries
> frequently get in the way of seeing these processes clearly.
>
> This all cuts right across the human/natural science divides that so stymie
> crea

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Simon Dalby]

Folks:

A slightly different take picking up from Larry Davis' post and thinking
through "framing" rather than anger ...

Science doesn't explain everything, and the huge problem with framing
climate change as an either or, right wrong matter is precisely that it
pretends science is something it plainly and simply isn't.

Framing what matters as only climate change too is also a problem because
other changes are part of the mix. Media stories blaming climate change for
every disaster are obviously silly, but nonetheless it seems clear that
greater instabilities in the climate system are to be expected as GHGs
increase and other ecological shifts happen simultaneously.

If you will please all forgive my flagrant self promotion here for a minute,
the little book I sent a note around about yesterday was in part designed to
re-frame, or as I usually prefer to put matters, re-contextualise this
debate. It does so by trying to link environmental history, current thinking
about earth system science (which includes climate change of course but is
about more than that) and the literature on vulnerability, which is crucial
for understanding who dies in disasters.

I am trying to find a simple vocabulary to explain to students how we
collectively have taken our fate into our own hands without necessarily
realising we have in fact done this. The new forcing mechanisms in the
biosphere are urban industrial production systems that literally turn rocks
into air, which is what fossil fuel consumption is doing. As new geological
actors we set things in motion which impact humanity in the increasingly
artificial ecologies of the urban settings we now live in. State boundaries
frequently get in the way of seeing these processes clearly.

This all cuts right across the human/natural science divides that so stymie
creative thinking. Industrial production decisions have geological effects;
infrastructure provision is effectively applied geomorphology. We haven't
really got a clear understanding of globalization as a physical process but
its moving vast amounts of material around in the biosphere. The habitat
loss consequences of all this are profound too as the MA folks, and the GEO4
folks documented in great detail.

Politics is at the heart of this, but politics understood in the classical
sense of how collective decisions about how we all ought to live together,
and makes rules for this living, rather than partizan yelling/competing for
office, are really difficult because who decides what kind of planet our
great grandchildren will inherit is what GEP is all about.

The cultural shift which makes us realise that we are part of a biosphere we
are actively changing, rather than on an earth which is a given context for
human struggles for power and prestige, is immense. But shifting from
physics metaphors to ecological ones (not old environmental notions of
preserving what was taken to be stable) is key to all this and the next
generation of students has to be prodded, inspired, stimulated to start
thinking in these terms.

We don't know what the future will be; science can't tell us, but what we do
know is that we are making it, literally by our economic actions, our
production decisions, and the kind of infrastructure we provide and the
buildings we design and make.

All of which may make things worse or better in many complicated ways. Its
about thinking about the consequences of actions; a theme which ironically
sometimes resonates rather well with "right wing" thinkers.

But until we can shift the contextualisations away from autonomous
individuals separate from everything else to a comprehension of us as
interconnected biosphere beings, the connection to consequences remains
difficult. But then since when was teaching either environment or politics
easy!?

Hope this rant helps a little ...

Simon





On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, rldavis  wrote:

> As a natural scientist, I wanted to weigh in on this. The key for me was
> the
> predictive and explanatory power of global warming theory. This is the
> strength of any successful scientific hypothesis. So many observed
> phenomena
> are explained by the theory that it becomes very, very likely that it is
> "the" explanation for most of them. Does it expalin everything? No. Should
> we be skeptical of additional claims (as Deb suggests). Yes! Do some slight
> flaws negate the whole theory? Not any that have been raised.
>
> What disturbs me most, I guess, is the failure of the public to understand
> that scientific knowledge is incomplete and evolving. As new data is
> gathered, we alter our hypotheses accordingly. This means that there may be
> some apparent "contradictions". Did we say one thing 15 years ago and the
> opposite now? Could be, but we know a whole lot more now. Furthermore, as
> we
> gain knowledge, our explanations become better and more likely.
>
> These are complex concepts, I know. However, if I could, with a magic wand,
> teach the public anything, it

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[rldavis]

As a natural scientist, I wanted to weigh in on this. The key for me was the
predictive and explanatory power of global warming theory. This is the
strength of any successful scientific hypothesis. So many observed phenomena
are explained by the theory that it becomes very, very likely that it is
"the" explanation for most of them. Does it expalin everything? No. Should
we be skeptical of additional claims (as Deb suggests). Yes! Do some slight
flaws negate the whole theory? Not any that have been raised.

What disturbs me most, I guess, is the failure of the public to understand
that scientific knowledge is incomplete and evolving. As new data is
gathered, we alter our hypotheses accordingly. This means that there may be
some apparent "contradictions". Did we say one thing 15 years ago and the
opposite now? Could be, but we know a whole lot more now. Furthermore, as we
gain knowledge, our explanations become better and more likely.

These are complex concepts, I know. However, if I could, with a magic wand,
teach the public anything, it would be how science actually works: how
hypotheses are generated and tested, what the role of the skeptic is, how
scientific consensus is reached and what that means-not a democratic "vote"
but rather a consensus of many scientists from many related fields that an
hypothesis is successful at explaining a wide variety of observations.

I very much appreciate this discussion and hope to see more comments on this
thread.

Larry Davis

*
R. Laurence Davis, Ph.D.
Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences
University Research Scholar
Department of Biology and Environmental Sciences
University of New Haven
300 Boston Post Road
West Haven, Connecticut 06516

Office: 203-932-7108Fax: 203-931-6097

UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN-
A Leader in Experiential Education
*

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Deb Ranjan Sinha (Gmail)]

Reading this debate, I was reminded again of an excellent article I read back 
in 
March on Freeman Dyson (see below). I, personally, have always thought of 
myself 
as a skeptic - not of global warming but its global and local effects. I often 
find my skepticism scary, given the fact that I am somewhat educated and also 
an 
educator. But, at the same time, I also find it disturbing when almost any kind 
of natural disaster starts getting blamed on global warming. I have noticed 
that 
voicing these internal doubts aloud in my classrooms made my students more 
acceptable of global warming (but it could be biased group). But, more 
importantly, I want to pass on the habit of being critical about every little 
piece of information that comes your way.

As this point this is the best I can do. In some ways we are all cherry-picking 
and trying our best to understand what is really going on. I worry, though, if 
we will ever understand enough to come to a rational conclusion.

Deb.


"Climate-change specialists often speak of global warming as a matter of moral 
conscience. Dyson says he thinks they sound presumptuous. As he warned that day 
four years ago at Boston University, the history of science is filled with 
those 
"who make confident predictions about the future and end up believing their 
predictions," and he cites examples of things people anticipated to the point 
of 
terrified certainty that never actually occurred, ranging from hellfire, to 
Hitler's atomic bomb, to the Y2K millennium bug. "It's always possible Hansen 
could turn out to be right," he says of the climate scientist. "If what he says 
were obviously wrong, he wouldn't have achieved what he has. But Hansen has 
turned his science into ideology. He's a very persuasive fellow and has the air 
of knowing everything. He has all the credentials. I have none. I don't have a 
Ph.D. He's published hundreds of papers on climate. I haven't. By the public 
standard he's qualified to talk and I'm not. But I do because I think I'm 
right. 
I think I have a broad view of the subject, which Hansen does not. I think it's 
true my career doesn't depend on it, whereas his does. I never claim to be an 
expert on climate. I think it's more a matter of judgement than knowledge.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html

something similar:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090630/ts_alt_afp/scienceusreligionevolution_20090630134058
 

RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[VanDeveer, Stacy]

I agree with Wil on this one.  Krugman's anger and contempt are not aimed all 
all citizens who are skeptical, but squarely at Republicans in Congress -- 
elected in theory to represent people's interests.  Yes, some are representing 
shorter term economic interests of their districts.  But most, in fact, are 
working to do very serious harm to millions of people (Americans and not) and 
they don't give a damn and they have offered nothing in the way of constructive 
policy ideas.  Some anger and contempt for such folks is not misplaced, in my 
view...



From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu 
[owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dr. Wil Burns 
[williamcgbu...@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 12:29 PM
To: 'Alcock, Frank'; 'Paul Wapner'
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 
'Steve Hoffman'
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

Hi Frank,

I actually didn’t find Krugman’s piece as so much smug as extremely angry, and 
I have to say it’s exactly how I feel on this issue, especially when I watch my 
six-year old playing in the back yard, or I travel to a small island state, and 
despair over the world we’re leaving them to cope with. It may be that liberals 
need to rant every now and then about issues of this saliency purely as a means 
of catharsis.

Having said that, yes, it doesn’t bring us together, so I’m sure far sager 
communicators on this list, such as Susi, would tell me it’s probably a dumb 
strategy. However, I wonder if any message would prove effective with the GOP 
this year, so maybe catharsis ain’t a bad thing to pursue at this point. It 
also may be that moral indignation, framing this as an issue of patriotism and 
our moral responsibility to the most vulnerable of this generation and 
generations to come, may be critical to ultimately changing norms, as was true 
in the civil rights movement in this country, the battle against apartheid, 
etc. I’ve reached a point where I’m running out of ways to frame this issue 
that might prove effective. wil

Dr. Wil Burns
Class of 1946 Visiting Professor
Center for Environmental Studies
Williams College
11 Harper House, Room 12
54 Stetson Ct.
Williamstown, MA 01267
william.c.bu...@williams.edu
[cid:image001.gif@01C9FC89.A5A4A640]


From: Alcock, Frank [mailto:falc...@ncf.edu]
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 7:45 AM
To: Paul Wapner; williamcgbu...@comcast.net
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 
Steve Hoffman
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

I'm enjoying the thread and hope it continues.

Per the Krugman editorial, I'd love to hear some reactions.

IMHO, I think it appeals to a narrowing portion of the American electorate 
while generating a dismissive reaction (as well as a few guffaws) from key 
constituencies that are on the fence regarding Waxman-Markey.

My own sense is that the chances of a climate bill passing the Senate (that 
includes title III -- the cap and trade program) are increasingly remote this 
year.  There is a renewed wave of recycled skeptic claims attacking climate 
science, to be sure, but there is also a fusillade of arguments regarding 
multiple aspects of the bill that seem to be gaining traction.  I just don't 
see 60 yea votes in the Senate happening.  As for the arguments against the 
bill I realize that many are bogus but some raise legitimate concerns.  
Krugman's rant comes across as smug, obstinate, and somewhat out-of-touch, 
playing right into the stereotype of liberals that conservatives are trying to 
project.  I don't doubt that Marc Morano was all smiles when he read it.

Frank Alcock
Associate Professor of Political Science
New College of Florida
5800 Bay Shore Road
Sarasota, FL  34243
(941) 487-4483 (phone)
(941) 487-4475 (fax)

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Paul Wapner
Sent: Fri 7/3/2009 11:04 PM
To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 
'Steve Hoffman'
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

Interesting discussion.

Krugman takes issue with skeptics in congress.  His views are not news but a 
nice context for the discussion:  
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html><http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html>




Paul Wapner
Associate Professor
Director, Global Environmental Politics Program
School of International Service
American University
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20016
(202) 885-1647

RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Dr. Wil Burns]

Hi Frank,

 

I actually didn't find Krugman's piece as so much smug as extremely angry,
and I have to say it's exactly how I feel on this issue, especially when I
watch my six-year old playing in the back yard, or I travel to a small
island state, and despair over the world we're leaving them to cope with. It
may be that liberals need to rant every now and then about issues of this
saliency purely as a means of catharsis. 

 

Having said that, yes, it doesn't bring us together, so I'm sure far sager
communicators on this list, such as Susi, would tell me it's probably a dumb
strategy. However, I wonder if any message would prove effective with the
GOP this year, so maybe catharsis ain't a bad thing to pursue at this point.
It also may be that moral indignation, framing this as an issue of
patriotism and our moral responsibility to the most vulnerable of this
generation and generations to come, may be critical to ultimately changing
norms, as was true in the civil rights movement in this country, the battle
against apartheid, etc. I've reached a point where I'm running out of ways
to frame this issue that might prove effective. wil

 

Dr. Wil Burns

Class of 1946 Visiting Professor

Center for Environmental Studies

Williams College

11 Harper House, Room 12

54 Stetson Ct.

Williamstown, MA 01267

william.c.bu...@williams.edu

Williams Purple Cow

 

 

From: Alcock, Frank [mailto:falc...@ncf.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 7:45 AM
To: Paul Wapner; williamcgbu...@comcast.net
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu;
Steve Hoffman
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

 

I'm enjoying the thread and hope it continues.

 

Per the Krugman editorial, I'd love to hear some reactions.

 

IMHO, I think it appeals to a narrowing portion of the American electorate
while generating a dismissive reaction (as well as a few guffaws) from key
constituencies that are on the fence regarding Waxman-Markey.

 

My own sense is that the chances of a climate bill passing the Senate (that
includes title III -- the cap and trade program) are increasingly remote
this year.  There is a renewed wave of recycled skeptic claims attacking
climate science, to be sure, but there is also a fusillade of arguments
regarding multiple aspects of the bill that seem to be gaining traction.  I
just don't see 60 yea votes in the Senate happening.  As for the arguments
against the bill I realize that many are bogus but some raise legitimate
concerns.  Krugman's rant comes across as smug, obstinate, and somewhat
out-of-touch, playing right into the stereotype of liberals that
conservatives are trying to project.  I don't doubt that Marc Morano was all
smiles when he read it.

 

Frank Alcock

Associate Professor of Political Science

New College of Florida

5800 Bay Shore Road

Sarasota, FL  34243

(941) 487-4483 (phone)

(941) 487-4475 (fax)

  _  

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Paul Wapner
Sent: Fri 7/3/2009 11:04 PM
To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu;
'Steve Hoffman'
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'


Interesting discussion. 

Krugman takes issue with skeptics in congress.  His views are not news but a
nice context for the discussion:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html>
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html> 




Paul Wapner
Associate Professor
Director, Global Environmental Politics Program
School of International Service
American University
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20016
(202) 885-1647

<>

RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Alcock, Frank]

I'm enjoying the thread and hope it continues.
 
Per the Krugman editorial, I'd love to hear some reactions.
 
IMHO, I think it appeals to a narrowing portion of the American electorate while generating a dismissive reaction (as well as a few guffaws) from key constituencies that are on the fence regarding Waxman-Markey.
 
My own sense is that the chances of a climate bill passing the Senate (that includes title III -- the cap and trade program) are increasingly remote this year.  There is a renewed wave of recycled skeptic claims attacking climate science, to be sure, but there is also a fusillade of arguments regarding multiple aspects of the bill that seem to be gaining traction.  I just don't see 60 yea votes in the Senate happening.  As for the arguments against the bill I realize that many are bogus but some raise legitimate concerns.  Krugman's rant comes across as smug, obstinate, and somewhat out-of-touch, playing right into the stereotype of liberals that conservatives are trying to project.  I don't doubt that Marc Morano was all smiles when he read it.
 
Frank Alcock
Associate Professor of Political Science
New College of Florida
5800 Bay Shore Road
Sarasota, FL  34243
(941) 487-4483 (phone)
(941) 487-4475 (fax)





From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Paul WapnerSent: Fri 7/3/2009 11:04 PMTo: williamcgbu...@comcast.netCc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu; owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu; 'Steve Hoffman'Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
Interesting discussion. Krugman takes issue with skeptics in congress.  His views are not news but a nice context for the discussion:   Paul WapnerAssociate ProfessorDirector, Global Environmental Politics ProgramSchool of International ServiceAmerican University4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NWWashington DC 20016(202) 885-1647

RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Paul Wapner]

Interesting discussion.

Krugman takes issue with skeptics in congress.  His views are not news but 
a nice context for the discussion:  





Paul Wapner
Associate Professor
Director, Global Environmental Politics Program
School of International Service
American University
4400 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20016
(202) 885-1647

Re: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Howard S Schiffman]

As someone who teaches contemporary environmental debates where a certain level 
of engagement on this issue is expected, I still don't see a need to play on 
the field of the skeptics with such overwhelming science and the national and 
international debate where it is. I often describe the evolution of the debate 
to the class up to the 4th IPCC and that becomes the starting point of the 
discussion of the contemporary debate (North-South perspectives, carbon 
trading/carbon tax, climate as a security threat, etc.). That said, I agree 
with Wil that students often have doubts and feel the full debate has not been 
presented to them. To address this, I assign Bjorn Lomborg's book which is an 
easy read and while not denying climate science, Lomborg assigns different 
values to the conclusions. The students appreciate this different perspective 
in the course and it is discussed robustly in class.   

Howard S. Schiffman, J.D., LL.M., Ph.D.


- Original Message -
From: "Dr. Wil Burns" 
Date: Friday, July 3, 2009 1:36 pm
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
To: 'Steve Hoffman' , 
gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu


> Despite the frustration attendant to grappling with this issue, as someone
>  who teaches a climate change course virtually every semester, I can attest
>  to the fact that devoting a day to the argument of the skeptics is a 
> great
>  teachable moment. 
>  
>   
>  
>  First, whether we want to admit it or not, a third to a half of our students
>  are probably climate skeptics (really); many won't admit it because 
> of the
>  orthodoxy our field often imposes, but they are. So we blithely 
> dismiss the
>  skeptics at our own peril (maybe it doesn't happen in your fields, 
> but law
>  professors usually say "why teach them about this stuff; the issue is
>  settled"). Second, even if our students don't buy the arguments of the
>  skeptics, it's critical to grapple with these arguments if they want 
> to be
>  able to clearly articulate to others why skeptic constructs are misguided,
>  and grappling with the issues is a great way to foster active learning.
>  Third, it's a great way to introduce broader issues, including the 
> role of
>  peer review in the scientific process, how scientific "findings" are
>  mediated by the political process, and why society still chooses to act
>  sometimes in the face of substantial scientific uncertainty.
>  
>   
>  
>  Thanks for some great new suggestions in this context from the list! 
> wil
>  
>   
>  
>  Dr. Wil Burns
>  
>  Class of 1946 Visiting Professor
>  
>  Center for Environmental Studies
>  
>  Williams College
>  
>  11 Harper House, Room 12
>  
>  54 Stetson Ct.
>  
>  Williamstown, MA 01267
>  
>  william.c.bu...@williams.edu
>  
>  Williams Purple Cow
>  
>   
>  
>   
>  
>  From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
>  [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman
>  Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:04 AM
>  To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
>  Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
>  
>   
>  
>  Many thanks to all who responded.  
>  
>   
>  
>  Clearly, it could be a full-time job (and almost surely is) to engage 
> in
>  this debate.
>  
>   
>  
>  I'll share the joy one of today's installments, which was 'generously'
>  presented to me:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html
>  
>   
>  
>  The Beat Goes On while The Heat Is On? 
>  
>   
>  
>  It might be interesting to expansively compare 'separation of church 
> and
>  state' with 'separation of politics and science.'  
>  
>   
>  
>  Steve
>  
>   
>  
>_  
>  
>  From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
>  [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dunlap, Riley
>  Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:23 PM
>  To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
>  Subject: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'
>  
>   
>  
>  The list, like the prior one of 450 Marc Morano put together for 
> Inhofe, is
>  a joke.  You can find a lot of info on it at places like these two:
>  
>   
>  
>  Climate Progess [http://climateprogress.org/] and DeSmog
>  [http://www.desmogblog.com/]. 
>  
>   
>  
>  There are very few legitimate climate scientists on it, and a number 
> of
>  people listed by Morano (who simply grabs names from publications, often
>  quoting folks out of context) have asked to be removed.
>  
>   
>  
>  Riley E. Dunlap
>  
>  Regents Professor
&

RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Dr. Wil Burns]

Despite the frustration attendant to grappling with this issue, as someone
who teaches a climate change course virtually every semester, I can attest
to the fact that devoting a day to the argument of the skeptics is a great
teachable moment. 

 

First, whether we want to admit it or not, a third to a half of our students
are probably climate skeptics (really); many won't admit it because of the
orthodoxy our field often imposes, but they are. So we blithely dismiss the
skeptics at our own peril (maybe it doesn't happen in your fields, but law
professors usually say "why teach them about this stuff; the issue is
settled"). Second, even if our students don't buy the arguments of the
skeptics, it's critical to grapple with these arguments if they want to be
able to clearly articulate to others why skeptic constructs are misguided,
and grappling with the issues is a great way to foster active learning.
Third, it's a great way to introduce broader issues, including the role of
peer review in the scientific process, how scientific "findings" are
mediated by the political process, and why society still chooses to act
sometimes in the face of substantial scientific uncertainty.

 

Thanks for some great new suggestions in this context from the list! wil

 

Dr. Wil Burns

Class of 1946 Visiting Professor

Center for Environmental Studies

Williams College

11 Harper House, Room 12

54 Stetson Ct.

Williamstown, MA 01267

william.c.bu...@williams.edu

Williams Purple Cow

 

 

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
[mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 10:04 AM
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

 

Many thanks to all who responded.  

 

Clearly, it could be a full-time job (and almost surely is) to engage in
this debate.

 

I'll share the joy one of today's installments, which was 'generously'
presented to me:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html

 

The Beat Goes On while The Heat Is On? 

 

It might be interesting to expansively compare 'separation of church and
state' with 'separation of politics and science.'  

 

Steve

 

  _  

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
[mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dunlap, Riley
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:23 PM
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

 

The list, like the prior one of 450 Marc Morano put together for Inhofe, is
a joke.  You can find a lot of info on it at places like these two:

 

Climate Progess [http://climateprogress.org/] and DeSmog
[http://www.desmogblog.com/]. 

 

There are very few legitimate climate scientists on it, and a number of
people listed by Morano (who simply grabs names from publications, often
quoting folks out of context) have asked to be removed.

 

Riley E. Dunlap

Regents Professor

Department of Sociology

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, OK  74078

405-744-6108

  _  

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
[owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman
[shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:41 PM
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

Dear All -

 

While discussing climate change with 'skeptics', I've been presented with
the following article:  

 

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs
<http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conten
tRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3>
&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

 

Would love to know how those on this list would respond, since I haven't
crunched the numbers myself.

 

That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following:

 

a)   For the record, to play the numbers game for a moment, how many
IPCC scientists are in this group of 700?  On the other hand, how many IPCC
scientists believe that climate change is both a serious problem and
human-caused?

b)  Knowing what I do about Japan, I don't put an enormous amount of
stock in the statement that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience Union
symposium didn't believe the IPCC report - the language barrier is large,
and cultural factors, e.g., what one might call 'cultural push-back' [reflex
skepticism], as well as 'follow the leader', and the particular nature of
this group, may be important here.   Quite a bit may have been lost in the
translation, so to speak - in both directions.  [Also, how many participants
were there at this "symposium"?]  Yet that is the lead 'fact' in the
article.

c)   How many of the 700 are on the payroll of 'interested parties

RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Steve Hoffman]

Many thanks to all who responded.  

 

Clearly, it could be a full-time job (and almost surely is) to engage in
this debate.

 

I'll share the joy one of today's installments, which was 'generously'
presented to me:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html

 

The Beat Goes On while The Heat Is On? 

 

It might be interesting to expansively compare 'separation of church and
state' with 'separation of politics and science.'  

 

Steve

 

  _  

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
[mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dunlap, Riley
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:23 PM
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: FW: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

 

The list, like the prior one of 450 Marc Morano put together for Inhofe, is
a joke.  You can find a lot of info on it at places like these two:

 

Climate Progess [http://climateprogress.org/] and DeSmog
[http://www.desmogblog.com/]. 

 

There are very few legitimate climate scientists on it, and a number of
people listed by Morano (who simply grabs names from publications, often
quoting folks out of context) have asked to be removed.

 

Riley E. Dunlap

Regents Professor

Department of Sociology

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, OK  74078

405-744-6108

  _  

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
[owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman
[shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:41 PM
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

Dear All -

 

While discussing climate change with 'skeptics', I've been presented with
the following article:  

 

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

 

Would love to know how those on this list would respond, since I haven't
crunched the numbers myself.

 

That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following:

 

a)   For the record, to play the numbers game for a moment, how many
IPCC scientists are in this group of 700?  On the other hand, how many IPCC
scientists believe that climate change is both a serious problem and
human-caused?

b)  Knowing what I do about Japan, I don't put an enormous amount of
stock in the statement that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience Union
symposium didn't believe the IPCC report - the language barrier is large,
and cultural factors, e.g., what one might call 'cultural push-back' [reflex
skepticism], as well as 'follow the leader', and the particular nature of
this group, may be important here.   Quite a bit may have been lost in the
translation, so to speak - in both directions.  [Also, how many participants
were there at this "symposium"?]  Yet that is the lead 'fact' in the
article.

c)   How many of the 700 are on the payroll of 'interested parties'?

 

As an interdisciplinary environmental scientist who does carry a healthy
degree of skepticism w/ regard to scientific data of all kinds, I do have a
certain amount of sympathy with anyone who professes to be skeptical.
However, my sense on climate change is that the scientific consensus has
become near-overwhelming, and while politics are of course not 100% divorced
from this, the data are very compelling. 

But again, I'm most curious to know what sort of response might come from
folks on this list who are much more well informed on this set of issues
than I.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

 --

Steven Hoffman, Ph.D.

Environmental Consulting and Innovation

Bow (Samish Island), WA

shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com

(360) 720-4378

 

RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Dr. Wil Burns]

One fundamental question you always have to ask is whether the "scientists"
are climatologists. You might have 100 podiatrists that believe something
related to neurology, but that's simply the conclusion of folks who while
doctors, lack the critical expertise to opine on neurological issues.
Similarly here. I know a lot of the names on the list; many of them are
physicists, chemists, biologists, astrophysicists; they're simply not
qualified to gainsay the conclusions of IPCC scientists, who are selected
because of their specific expertise in the field of climatology.

 

Moreover, if you look at the link on the Senate site, you can see some of
the quack science in action. For example, the claim that temperatures
haven't risen since 1998, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations of approximately 15ppm. Folks like Roger Pielke, and more
notoriously because they totally lack integrity, Fred Singer and Lord
Monckton, choose to "cherry pick" from the datasets, snatching out 1-2 year
snippets of climatic data. What they fail to do is look at the trajectory of
average temperatures, so while there are dips and spikes in temperatures, if
one smooth these out over the course of the past decade. See: Robert
Fawcett,  <http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/82> "Has the world cooled
since 1998?," Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic
Society, Vol. 20, pp. 141-148. The claims of these guys are pervaded with
mistakes of this nature, either reflecting the ignorance of
non-climatologists, or intentional efforts to mislead. wil

 

Dr. Wil Burns

Class of 1946 Visiting Professor

Center for Environmental Studies

Williams College

11 Harper House, Room 12

54 Stetson Ct.

Williamstown, MA 01752

william.c.bu...@williams.edu

Williams Purple Cow

 

 

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
[mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Maniates
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:54 PM
To: Steve Hoffman; gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

 

Steve,

A good place for an overview on this stuff is http://www.realclimate.org/

The arguments in the web link you provide have been around, in varied forms,
for some time, even though they're regularly contextualized and refuted.
There's a nice literature on the political strategy and forces driving the
stuff of the website you've posted here, a literature that others on the
list may wish to illuminate.  In my experience, the first best entry point
into much of this is realclimate.org

Mike Maniates

 At 06:41 PM 7/2/2009, Steve Hoffman wrote:



Dear All -
 
While discussing climate change with 'skeptics', I've been presented with
the following article:  
 
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs
<http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conten
tRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3>
&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3 
 
Would love to know how those on this list would respond, since I haven't
crunched the numbers myself.
 
That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following:
 
a)For the record, to play the numbers game for a moment, how many
IPCC scientists are in this group of 700?  On the other hand, how many IPCC
scientists believe that climate change is both a serious problem and
human-caused?
b)   Knowing what I do about Japan, I don't put an enormous amount of
stock in the statement that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience Union
symposium didn't believe the IPCC report - the language barrier is large,
and cultural factors, e.g., what one might call 'cultural push-back' [reflex
skepticism], as well as 'follow the leader', and the particular nature of
this group, may be important here.   Quite a bit may have been lost in the
translation, so to speak - in both directions.  [Also, how many participants
were there at this "symposium"?]  Yet that is the lead 'fact' in the
article.
c)How many of the 700 are on the payroll of 'interested parties'?
 
As an interdisciplinary environmental scientist who does carry a healthy
degree of skepticism w/ regard to scientific data of all kinds, I do have a
certain amount of sympathy with anyone who professes to be skeptical.
However, my sense on climate change is that the scientific consensus has
become near-overwhelming, and while politics are of course not 100% divorced
from this, the data are very compelling. 

But again, I'm most curious to know what sort of response might come from
folks on this list who are much more well informed on this set of issues
than I.
 
 
Best Regards,
 
 --
Steven Hoffman, Ph.D.
Environmental Consulting and Innovation
Bow (Samish Island), WA
shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com
(360) 720-4378
  

<>

RE: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Ronald Mitchell]

Two perhaps useful thoughts:

 

1) something from a piece I wrote for a conference recently: 

"We also do not want scientific "truth" decided by votes, whether those of
the public or of scientists. We do not trust something as "the truth" about
how the world works because it meets the democratic criterion of "receiving
the most votes." Indeed, references to a "consensus of scientific opinion"
about climate change get it quite wrong. Scientific revolutions occur
precisely because there are historical moments at which the overwhelming
(and sometimes unanimous) consensus of scientific opinion is dead wrong --
the Copernican revolution being the obvious example. The "consensus of
scientific opinion" on climate change is useful shorthand for communicating
some more accurate but less felicitous phrase such as "a
mutually-reinforcing convergence of critically-evaluated and
empirically-supported evidence from multiple indicators." The strength of
our belief in some scientific "truth" derives neither from its being
supported by a consensus nor from its being supported by the opinion of
informed scientists but from its being supported by evidence, logic, and
argument."

I think getting people to understand why we might want to trust scientists
about climate change begins with understanding what the underpinnings of
this sort of "knowing" are.  The social processes that generate some
approximation of "truth" in science are quite separate and distinct from
those that generate some approximation of "truth" in law or politics (or
love for that matter).

 

2) its worth making clear how outliers often diverge from trends. Thus, we
had 8 no-school snow days where I live this past year, more than most years
in a long time.  Some glaciers are getting bigger these days.  Europe will
be colder if the Gulf Stream shuts down due to the collapse of thermohaline
circulation.  But none of these mean that climate change isn't occurring.
Climate vs. weather metaphor: I am a quite bald man (ask any of my friends)
- when I wake up in the morning, I often find a few stray hairs growing in
the middle of my otherwise bald head.  The hair is like cold "weather"
existing in a "climate" on my noggin that is no longer particularly
conducive to hair-growing.

 

 

 

 

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
[mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Hoffman
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 3:41 PM
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

 

Dear All -

 

While discussing climate change with 'skeptics', I've been presented with
the following article:  

 

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

 

Would love to know how those on this list would respond, since I haven't
crunched the numbers myself.

 

That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following:

 

a) For the record, to play the numbers game for a moment, how many IPCC
scientists are in this group of 700?  On the other hand, how many IPCC
scientists believe that climate change is both a serious problem and
human-caused?

b)Knowing what I do about Japan, I don't put an enormous amount of stock
in the statement that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience Union
symposium didn't believe the IPCC report - the language barrier is large,
and cultural factors, e.g., what one might call 'cultural push-back' [reflex
skepticism], as well as 'follow the leader', and the particular nature of
this group, may be important here.   Quite a bit may have been lost in the
translation, so to speak - in both directions.  [Also, how many participants
were there at this "symposium"?]  Yet that is the lead 'fact' in the
article.

c) How many of the 700 are on the payroll of 'interested parties'?

 

As an interdisciplinary environmental scientist who does carry a healthy
degree of skepticism w/ regard to scientific data of all kinds, I do have a
certain amount of sympathy with anyone who professes to be skeptical.
However, my sense on climate change is that the scientific consensus has
become near-overwhelming, and while politics are of course not 100% divorced
from this, the data are very compelling. 

But again, I'm most curious to know what sort of response might come from
folks on this list who are much more well informed on this set of issues
than I.

 

 

Best Regards,

 

 --

Steven Hoffman, Ph.D.

Environmental Consulting and Innovation

Bow (Samish Island), WA

shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com

(360) 720-4378

 

Re: Ongoing issue -- responding to 'skeptics'

[Michael Maniates]

Steve,

A good place for an overview on this stuff is http://www.realclimate.org/

The arguments in the web link you provide have 
been around, in varied forms, for some time, even 
though they're regularly contextualized and 
refuted.  There's a nice literature on the 
political strategy and forces driving the stuff 
of the website you've posted here, a literature 
that others on the list may wish to 
illuminate.  In my experience, the first best 
entry point into much of this is realclimate.org


Mike Maniates

 At 06:41 PM 7/2/2009, Steve Hoffman wrote:

Dear All –

While discussing climate change with ‘skeptics’, 
I’ve been presented with the following article:


http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

Would love to know how those on this list would 
respond, since I haven’t crunched the numbers myself.


That notwithstanding, my response would probably touch on the following:

a)   For the record, to play the numbers 
game for a moment, how many IPCC scientists are 
in this group of 700?  On the other hand, how 
many IPCC scientists believe that climate change 
is both a serious problem and human-caused?
b)  Knowing what I do about Japan, I don’t 
put an enormous amount of stock in the statement 
that 90% of participants in a Japan Geoscience 
Union symposium didn’t believe the IPCC report – 
the language barrier is large, and cultural 
factors, e.g., what one might call ‘cultural 
push-back’ [reflex skepticism], as well as 
‘follow the leader’, and the particular nature 
of this group, may be important here.   Quite a 
bit may have been lost in the translation, so to 
speak – in both directions.  [Also, how many 
participants were there at this 
“symposium”?]  Yet that is the lead ‘fact’ in the article.

c)   How many of the 700 are on the payroll of ‘interested parties’?

As an interdisciplinary environmental scientist 
who does carry a healthy degree of skepticism w/ 
regard to scientific data of all kinds, I do 
have a certain amount of sympathy with anyone 
who professes to be skeptical.  However, my 
sense on climate change is that the scientific 
consensus has become near-overwhelming, and 
while politics are of course not 100% divorced 
from this, the data are very compelling.


But again, I’m most curious to know what sort of 
response might come from folks on this list who 
are much more well informed on this set of issues than I.



Best Regards,

 --
Steven Hoffman, Ph.D.
Environmental Consulting and Innovation
Bow (Samish Island), WA
shoff...@hoffman-and-associates.com
(360) 720-4378